search_code

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a critical server-side requirement (both query and documents are mandatory) and the resulting error (HTTP 400 if documents is missing). This goes beyond the input schema, which marks only query as required. It does not discuss other behaviors like pagination or performance, but the core safety and contractual obligation are well communicated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—only two sentences totaling about 70 words. The first sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose, and the second delivers critical contractual information. No extraneous detail is included.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the primary use. The mention of the server-side requirement adds completeness. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though implied by 'search') or describe the return structure, but the presence of an output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the implicit server requirement for the 'documents' parameter, which is not reflected as required in the schema. This extra context helps the agent understand a potential failure point.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'IRIS source documents', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_class_source' which retrieves a specific class rather than searching across documents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. However, it does provide a crucial usage constraint: both 'query' and 'documents' are required server-side, which helps the agent avoid HTTP 400 errors. No comparison with sibling tools is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.